Pro will offer their opening arguments in support of the resolution in R1 and will not post in R4 so as to maintain equality in case length.

===Definitions===

Homosexual acts refer to consensual sex acts between two or more members of the same sex. I will obviously not be defending male on male or female on female rape. I will only be defending consensual gay sex against the charges of immorality.

For an action to be immoral means that it is contrary to right or to moral conduct. I'll refrain from posting anything more on the definition seeing as my opponent and I will no doubt have differing views on what constituted immorality.

===Resolution and BoP===

The primary burden on Pro to provide and defend an argument in support of the resolution. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case. The resolution surrounds consensual sex acts between members of the same gender and whether or not those acts categorically constitute immorality on the part of the participants.

I am an atheist, and pro Gay. However, the debate is about morality. (And an interesting debate ensues...)

I commend my opponent for allowing the sharing of the definition of morality.

Morality is relative to the observer. There is no fixed morality, it is only in the context of the culture.

For a primal tribe of savages, it is moral and correct for 30+ men to murder and pillage neighboring tribes.

Under American Law, it is illegal for 30+ men to travel to Vegas to murder and pillage.

The question is, what defines morality?

Religion

The world's largest religion is Christianity. Thus, the most popular code of morality is based on the Christian bible.

The Bible is against homosexuality.[1][2][3]

The second largest religion is Islam. Thus, the second most popular code of morality is based on the Qur'an and the Bible.

The Qur'an and the Bible are against homosexuality.[1][2][3][4]

These two religious groups make up 54.33% of the world population.[5]

Core point: the moral code that is the foundation of more than half the world is against homosexuality.

System of Law[6]

If you talk in the context of the Middle East, the death penalty is in effect for homosexual behavior.

If you talk in the context of Canada, Gay Marriage is allowed.

Cultural Context

Is it immoral to be gay? The bottom line is, what framework of beliefs does an individual hold to.

[1] Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22 NIV)[2] If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13 NIV)[3] Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27 NIV)[4] And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk. (Qur'an 7:80-81)[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Pro's argument is essentially that culture determines morality and the dominant cultural moral systems oppose it. Therefore, my opponent argues, homosexuality is immoral. There are a host of obvious and irredeemable problems with the above argument. Though I'll only point out the most fatal to Pro's case here.

If morality is ontologically subjective (as in Pro's argument-- being based on the mere aggregate of individual opinions on the matter) than we can't coherently argue one way or another on any particular moral issue (e.g. homosexuality). Therefore, Pro's argument defeats itself since parting ways with objectivity just as well parts ways with any form of logical analysis (or consequently, any form of argument).

Consider an example for clarification. Person X and Y are debating which flavor of ice cream is superior. At the outset both agree that the answer will ultimately be subjective. No coherent debate can ever commence since no inter-subjectively valid answer will ever be arrived at. That is, in order to argue coherently, one must be able to forward reasons which would be compelling to a third party irrespective of their own subjective values. Pro's moral framework, and hence his conclusion, lay outside of this necessary requisite to argumentation and thus show no reason to be accepted.

Extend arguments I suppose since Pro doesn't seem interested in debating anymore. I have no idea what to make of his comment. It seems at best non-applicable (in that there's wide disagreement in American culture over the morality of homosexuality) here and at worst a misleading response to my problem of inter subjective validation in moral discourse I.e., Pro misses the fact that a collectivity of subjective values doesn't warrant any sort of leap to objectivity or normative authority.

In Round 2 my opponent simply restated my position and said it was incorrect. In Round 2 I demonstrated how I was correct after all.

I shall go on.

Slavery could be an equivalent issue. It has been morally correct to own slaves since before the United States was founded. It was such a decisive issue that the balance in congress was Slave State vs Free State. This is equivalent in strength to Democrat vs Republican today.

It appears as though this debate is at an impasse. In my R2 response to Pro's argument I pointed out the problems in his asserting a subjective morality via "inter-subjective" validation. Pro in response offered up merely a line of argument conjuring a hypothetical wherein a culture thought yeast was evil. Since that wasn't an argument I merely restated the same problems in Pro's argument which he continues to make, namely that aggregate subjectivity doesn't equate to objectivity.

My opponent has refused to make an argument in support of this necessary connection to his argument, instead continuing to offer hypotheticals which merely presume his conclusion. One such hypothetical was offered in r3 wherein Pro argued that slavery was "acceptable" before but is not so now. This merely presumes at the outset though that morality is predicated on the dictates of aggregate subjectivity which is what Pro is undertaking to prove in the first place.

I'm not grossed out per se, I'm just not into it. I've heard both types of reactions from heteros and homos i.e., heteros like johnlubba who are absolutely disgusted by opposite sexual preference and (more often than not) people who just aren't into it.

Noumena, are you repulsed by the the thought of heterosexual sex? I've always been curious if there's an 'ick' reaction to heterosexuality among homosexuals the way there is an 'ick' reaction to homosexuality among heterosexuals. I don't think I've ever heard a gay person say they were grossed out by heterosexuality.

So it's ok for you to air and post your views openly on a public forum and it isn't ok for me......

You got to be kidding, if you like sleeping with men and want to declare it openly and even go as far as holding a debate about it, then fair play to you....Just don't complain when I tell you how repulsive I think it is....It turns my stomach and makes me sick.........naturally.....I can respect how you are naturally gay....so respect how I am naturally repulsed by even the thought of it.

Oh I forgot I am not meant to have an opinon and I should just keep quiet....bollox.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were to some large degree self-defeating, as Con showed. Pro essentially dropped two rounds also. The only thing Pro wins points for is providing sources, which Con did not do.

Reasons for voting decision: What is this I don't even...Pro, were you trying a semantical gambit? It failed, but...you produced no argument in support of it being immoral other than that some people consider it immoral, which was pointed out to you as being quite a begging of the question, and your response was short restatements as though repetition would make it so. Arguments for arguments, but I also give conduct, because this was just...bad, and I'm giving Pro credit in the sense that I'd rather believe this was bad conduct than the alternative.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.